6 ms·

People keep on saying this but it's just not obviously true. > People haven’t been paying for offices for the last ten years for no reason. Companies do so ma

People keep on saying this but it's just not obviously true. > People haven’t been paying for offices for the last ten years for no reason. Companies do so many suboptimal things that this argument isn't credible. We've seen how many organizations can barely limp through a "digital transformation", so why should we expect them to be operating anywhere near optimally along other axes? They could just as easily be paying for office space because of tradition or internal momentum, because it confers status or because it gives executives a feeling of control. (This isn't even speculation: I've actually heard executives say that they want people back in the office to keep an eye on them and make sure they're working hard.) It's not that engineers "don't understand" that "every other function functions better in person", it's that they disagree—with a pretty reasonable basis at that. Companies pushed open offices on the back of the same kind of baseless assumptions contravening both research and individuals' direct experience, and the push to return everyone to the office isn't any different or better-supported.

SantalBlush 5y ago
>We've seen how many organizations can barely limp through a "digital transformation", so why should we expect them to be operating anywhere near optimally along other axes? This is an excellent point that I'd never thought of. It demonstrates that a lot of companies resist change at their own peril, and not because it's the shrewd thing to do.
- notpachet 5y ago
  Now take that axiom and blow it up to encompass all human groups, and you'll have a pretty accurate picture of the state of the species.
moises_silva 5y ago
> People keep on saying this but it's just not obviously true. How is it obviously not true? I mean. I love remote work. I started working remotely way before it was mainstream and I'm advocate for it. I've managed remote teams for many years too. Even so, I can't claim there's no performance hit. I just think the performance hit is small enough that in most cases the benefits for people and businesses outweigh it.
- adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
  Not obviously true != obviously not true.
  - snicker7 5y ago
    English isn’t abelian.
    - dllthomas 5y ago
      It's Albionian, though.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  How do you balance that against the performance hit of working on-prem? You can't just hand-wave away the unpaid labor and risk to your life that you undertake with every trip to and from the office. You can't ignore the drive-by conversations you get roped into when you're trying to do head-down work or the overall noise in an office. Yes, in ideal conditions your office might approach what you get working at home, but I've never experienced it, especially given that open plan offices are now an unquestioned default setting.
  - nostrebored 5y ago
    Drive by conversations are a feature not a bug, assuming a high functioning environment.
    - mulmen 5y ago
      So I am low functioning because I have a human brain? Task switching is not free. I have never been a member of an organization with more than three people who didn't have at least one member incapable of understanding headphones mean "don't talk to me". Informal conversations happen in team chat now so it can be asynchronous, I never miss overhearing something relevant in the team room because I am away at a meeting, I can sync up at my convenience.
passivate 5y ago
>We've seen how many organizations can barely limp through a "digital transformation", so why should we expect them to be operating anywhere near optimally along other axes? This is a bad argument. Just because they do one thing poorly (in your opinion - no proof) that doesn't mean they're wrong about remote work. Quite ironic considering you called out the other commenter for bad arguments. In any case, the proof as always is in the results, not internet arguments. If remote work produced better results at lower costs, more companies would adopt it. If remote work is not a competitive edge, then it probably doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things - IMO.
- tikhonj 5y ago
  It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it means there is no reason to believe they're right either. Doubly so when there are a lot of other plausible systematic reasons for companies to do something!
jt2190 5y ago
> Companies do so many suboptimal things that this argument isn't credible. We've seen how many organizations can barely limp through a "digital transformation", But startups [1] (the original context of this thread) aren’t “digitally transforming” themselves, they’re trying to create completely new approaches to outdated ones. The question is: Is the increased friction of remote communication a competitive disadvantage when in the company formation stage? What about the growth stage? If so, does the extra friction overwhelm the company’s other strengths, like market demand? I suppose we’ll see in ten years or so if any/many unicorns emerge that started as fully remote. [2] (My guess is that we’ll still see most startups were not fully remote.) [1] The YC definition: Venture-backed, huge growth, winner-takes-all, etc. [2] Someone please start a spreadsheet/investment fund.

SantalBlush 5y ago

>We've seen how many organizations can barely limp through a "digital transformation", so why should we expect them to be operating anywhere near optimally along other axes? This is an excellent point that I'd never thought of. It demonstrates that a lot of companies resist change at their own peril, and not because it's the shrewd thing to do.

notpachet 5y ago
Now take that axiom and blow it up to encompass all human groups, and you'll have a pretty accurate picture of the state of the species.

moises_silva 5y ago

> People keep on saying this but it's just not obviously true. How is it obviously not true? I mean. I love remote work. I started working remotely way before it was mainstream and I'm advocate for it. I've managed remote teams for many years too. Even so, I can't claim there's no performance hit. I just think the performance hit is small enough that in most cases the benefits for people and businesses outweigh it.

adgjlsfhk1 5y ago
Not obviously true != obviously not true.
- snicker7 5y ago
  English isn’t abelian.
  - dllthomas 5y ago
    It's Albionian, though.
mullingitover 5y ago
How do you balance that against the performance hit of working on-prem? You can't just hand-wave away the unpaid labor and risk to your life that you undertake with every trip to and from the office. You can't ignore the drive-by conversations you get roped into when you're trying to do head-down work or the overall noise in an office. Yes, in ideal conditions your office might approach what you get working at home, but I've never experienced it, especially given that open plan offices are now an unquestioned default setting.
- nostrebored 5y ago
  Drive by conversations are a feature not a bug, assuming a high functioning environment.
  - mulmen 5y ago
    So I am low functioning because I have a human brain? Task switching is not free. I have never been a member of an organization with more than three people who didn't have at least one member incapable of understanding headphones mean "don't talk to me". Informal conversations happen in team chat now so it can be asynchronous, I never miss overhearing something relevant in the team room because I am away at a meeting, I can sync up at my convenience.

passivate 5y ago

>We've seen how many organizations can barely limp through a "digital transformation", so why should we expect them to be operating anywhere near optimally along other axes? This is a bad argument. Just because they do one thing poorly (in your opinion - no proof) that doesn't mean they're wrong about remote work. Quite ironic considering you called out the other commenter for bad arguments. In any case, the proof as always is in the results, not internet arguments. If remote work produced better results at lower costs, more companies would adopt it. If remote work is not a competitive edge, then it probably doesn't matter in the larger scheme of things - IMO.

tikhonj 5y ago
It doesn't mean they're wrong, but it means there is no reason to believe they're right either. Doubly so when there are a lot of other plausible systematic reasons for companies to do something!

jt2190 5y ago

> Companies do so many suboptimal things that this argument isn't credible. We've seen how many organizations can barely limp through a "digital transformation", But startups [1] (the original context of this thread) aren’t “digitally transforming” themselves, they’re trying to create completely new approaches to outdated ones. The question is: Is the increased friction of remote communication a competitive disadvantage when in the company formation stage? What about the growth stage? If so, does the extra friction overwhelm the company’s other strengths, like market demand? I suppose we’ll see in ten years or so if any/many unicorns emerge that started as fully remote. [2] (My guess is that we’ll still see most startups were not fully remote.) [1] The YC definition: Venture-backed, huge growth, winner-takes-all, etc. [2] Someone please start a spreadsheet/investment fund.